Our Sponsor Sideshow Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
The Hobbit, the movie: will it be a fantasy epic or a children's film? Or both?
First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 Next page Last page  View All

Silverlode
Forum Admin / Moderator


Oct 8 2007, 7:16pm

Post #26 of 124 (1165 views)
Shortcut
It is. [In reply to] Can't Post

And I definitely wouldn't want to see it cut or downplayed. But what I really don't want is for it to seem like it's all been done before - too reminiscent of Dragonheart or Eragon or any number of other fantasy movies with talking dragons. One of the great disadvantages Tolkien faces in any adaptation is the likelihood of being compared unfavorably to his imitators. It takes careful planning to present some of the elements of his writing as original and iconic and not derivative of the genre - when of course the case is exactly the opposite. Oh, the irony.

Silverlode

"Of all faces those of our familiares are the ones both most difficult to play fantastic tricks with, and most difficult really to see with fresh attention. They have become like the things which once attracted us by their glitter, or their colour, or their shape, and we laid hands on them, and then locked them in our hoard, acquired them, and acquiring ceased to look at them.
Creative fantasy, because it is mainly trying to do something else [make something new], may open your hoard and let all the locked things fly away like cage-birds. The gems all turn into flowers or flames, and you will be warned that all you had (or knew) was dangerous and potent, not really effectively chained, free and wild; no more yours than they were you." -On Fairy Stories


N.E. Brigand
Half-elven


Oct 8 2007, 7:41pm

Post #27 of 124 (1176 views)
Shortcut
D'oh! [In reply to] Can't Post

I got overzealous when I fixed the spelling. Sorry about that.

And thank you for explaining what I was too slow to catch; I see what you are saying about Jackson's Tolkien work.

I wonder: do the Hobbit movie(s) really need to seamlessly blend with the LotR movies? Why is that not true of Tolkien's books?

And what do people who believe Star Wars ep. I-III "reduced the impact" of SW IV-IV mean by that assessment? The first movies' influence on twenty years of subsequent film history can hardly have been erased.

Still, I share your hope for the best of all possible Hobbit film(s) -- though preferably one film.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Discuss The Children of Húrin in the Reading Room, June 11-October 14.


Darkstone
Immortal


Oct 8 2007, 8:02pm

Post #28 of 124 (1166 views)
Shortcut
Ah, yes! [In reply to] Can't Post

And what do people who believe Star Wars ep. I-III "reduced the impact" of SW IV-IV mean by that assessment? The first movies' influence on twenty years of subsequent film history can hardly have been erased.

Well, "Jackson ruined the book!!" was a well used phrase after each LOTR film came out.

******************************************
The audacious proposal stirred his heart. And the stirring became a song, and it mingled with the songs of Gil-galad and Celebrian, and with those of Feanor and Fingon. The song-weaving created a larger song, and then another, until suddenly it was as if a long forgotten memory woke and for one breathtaking moment the Music of the Ainur revealed itself in all glory. He opened his lips to sing and share this song. Then he realized that the others would not understand. Not even Mithrandir given his current state of mind. So he smiled and simply said "A diversion.”



labingi_maura
Rivendell


Oct 8 2007, 8:16pm

Post #29 of 124 (1212 views)
Shortcut
And to continue my thoughts on seamlessness and continuity,... [In reply to] Can't Post

...I hope PJ will be in charge, and I hope he considers the idea of having Ian Holm reprise his role as Bilbo, but in an introductory or bookend sort of way. Maybe just like in LOTR when he was writing in the Red Book, Ian Holm /Bilbo could be remembering his adventure and writing it down (maybe he is Ancient Bilbo doing this in Rivendell) then the scene wipes into the beginning of The Hobbit with a younger actor as Bilbo. ( Whoever they choose to be younger Bilbo should look as much like Ian Holm as possible, I think. )
Or, hearty middle-aged Ian Holm/Bilbo could be telling his story at a family gathering, and then we could see cameos of the Fellowship hobbit actors portraying their characters' fathers, so they'd look like older versions of Sam, Merry, Pippin and Frodo. (I'm really rooting for this idea; I'd love to see a little-boy version of Frodo with his father (EW) and mother, listening to Uncle Bilbo's story!!)
But yes, I agree that unless PJ has a great deal of involvement in The Hobbit in the writing and directing areas, it just won't have that continuity I so desire.
And back to talking creatures:
On another LOTR list I belong to, there was a good idea brought up by a member Dawn Wood, that maybe the three Trolls could be speaking in the Black Speech! Isn't that a cool idea? Maybe one of the trolls can speak broken "common tongue", so he's the one who replies to Bilbo and translates for the other trolls. I really like that idea from Dawn. But I still like the idea of the eagles speaking telepathically to Gandalf, and he translates for the dwarves and Bilbo; that was someone here who thought of that.
And Bilbo understanding the spiders and Smaug only because he is wearing the Ring works for me! I think telepathically hearing Smaug is better and less cartoony, although Bilbo could speak out loud back to him, perhaps.
-Maura

"I am in fact a hobbit in all but size." - J.R.R.Tolkien


Darkstone
Immortal


Oct 8 2007, 8:37pm

Post #30 of 124 (1191 views)
Shortcut
TLTWTW [In reply to] Can't Post

I think The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe showed that talking animals can work cinematically, and work well. Before the movie I was doubtful it could be done but I was absolutely delighted with the final product.

My favorite remains the talking gryphon, who, incidentally, was voiced by Cameron Rhodes, who played Farmer Maggot in FOTR.

(BTW, that would be an excellent way to cameo LOTR actors.)

And yes, I can see where Jackson could start The Hobbit childishly (like the beginning of the Deagol/Smeagol scene in ROTK.) and end darkly. It would be just like the book.

******************************************
The audacious proposal stirred his heart. And the stirring became a song, and it mingled with the songs of Gil-galad and Celebrian, and with those of Feanor and Fingon. The song-weaving created a larger song, and then another, until suddenly it was as if a long forgotten memory woke and for one breathtaking moment the Music of the Ainur revealed itself in all glory. He opened his lips to sing and share this song. Then he realized that the others would not understand. Not even Mithrandir given his current state of mind. So he smiled and simply said "A diversion.”



(This post was edited by Darkstone on Oct 8 2007, 8:39pm)


hasufel
Rivendell


Oct 8 2007, 8:49pm

Post #31 of 124 (1156 views)
Shortcut
No right answer [In reply to] Can't Post

When the 2nd trilogy was created for Star Wars (I, II, III), it completed the entire story.

So it no longer was the story of Luke and rebels vs Darth Vadar and the dark side.

To me the entire story was about Anakin Skywalker.

His childhood, being a young jedi, jumping teams to the dark side, running the dark side, ending with his demise and transformation back to being Anakin.

Whe it was just the original trilogy it was a simple concept of good versus evil set in the future.

I know I am way oversimplifying it, but it is difficult to explain in few words.

I personally feel that all five movies should blend and eventually tell one big story of middle earth.

Each movie (so far) can stand on its own in my opinion. But all together they do follow a timeline of the history of middle earth.

The Sil is way too complex to translate to the theater. It would take many many movies to tell the story correctly. So starting middle earth history on film with the Hobbit makes sense to me. The prequel of bridge movie makes sense to close the time in between an complete a l;arge part of the history of middle earth.

And I would say you are correct, it does not have to blend with the others.

But it seems to me that films want a beginning, middle and end. Many filmgoers want that beginning, middle, end too.

Hopefully the director can appease the masses while staying as true to the original material as possible. I feel that Jackson understands this and this original material's following better than anyone.

He is the best bet for book lovers and film lovers to all be satisfied with the end product.


Compa_Mighty
Tol Eressea


Oct 8 2007, 8:59pm

Post #32 of 124 (1158 views)
Shortcut
So hard to choose which post to reply to... [In reply to] Can't Post

So I'm answering to this one arbitrarily. You all say many very interesting and very true things. They are way too many to retain, and answer to, but I'll try to touch some points.

The White Council depends on Mr. Lee? Yes. I agree with that. I still hold some hope that he will be able to reprise his role... bring Blanchett back as well, and we have the perfect pretext to bring Liv Tyler back as well, at least in a cameo.

Smaug speaking? I am sorry, but I beg to differ here. No animal should talk but Smaug. It worked for Draco 15 years ago, it can work with Smaug now. If I had a say I would insist on having Smaug articulating.

Childish beginning and fade to black? I like it! Wink We should have a nice Shire scene once more. You know I have been a defender of the idea of a prologue with Smaug attacking Erebor. Well, now, with your comments, I think we should start simply with Gandalf narrating. This movie should start "In a hole in the ground there lived a Hobbit" (I posted my recommended monologue edition elsewhere in this forum). And then we can have all the flashbacks as told by Thorin and Gandalf.

Let me think... First scene: The round door of Bag End, and a small tour à la FOTR EE. We are introduced to Bilbo and the camera then shows Hobbiton, and Gandalf arriving for the first time. Not in a car this time, maybe just walking, let us see other angles of what we have already seen. Lightness could be preserved up to Thorin's tale at dinner, when it starts darkening.

Nice ideas people! Best thread in a long time! Smile

Let it be heard! We want Jackson for The Hobbit!


Elizabeth
Half-elven


Oct 8 2007, 9:03pm

Post #33 of 124 (1172 views)
Shortcut
Well, I'm not sure what others mean. [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
And what do people who believe Star Wars ep. I-III "reduced the impact" of SW IV-IV mean by that assessment? The first movies' influence on twenty years of subsequent film history can hardly have been erased.


But to me, the generally sleazy quality of ep. I-III has tarnished the reputation of the whole, and Lucas as an artist. It pains me that my grandson and most other young people think first of ep. I-III when they hear the words "Star Wars".

Perhaps an analogy would be judging Tolkien by CoH: imagine a world in which that's the only Tolkien many people would have read.




Son of Elizabeth in Frodo's tree
March, 2007


Elizabeth is the TORnsib formerly known as 'erather'


orcbane
Gondor


Oct 8 2007, 9:12pm

Post #34 of 124 (1191 views)
Shortcut
The Forum of Bable [In reply to] Can't Post

Feel the same way as C_M. Many good ideas and thoughts are being well...spewed. Its not like we haven't had some time to think about it. But I hope we don't have much more.

The transistion idea grows on me too...

It should fit well with how the 'good guys' all give in to greed and even begin actual fighting among themselves.


Compa_Mighty
Tol Eressea


Oct 9 2007, 12:24am

Post #35 of 124 (1146 views)
Shortcut
Sorry but I do have to ask... [In reply to] Can't Post

I get the Star Wars thing, although I am as much as a fan of Star Wars as I am of Middle Earth. But Children of Húrin? Was there a problem with it?

Let it be heard! We want Jackson for The Hobbit!


Silverlode
Forum Admin / Moderator


Oct 9 2007, 1:37am

Post #36 of 124 (1140 views)
Shortcut
It worked well there, but... [In reply to] Can't Post

Narnia is "A Land Where There Are Talking Animals". It's a key part of the legendarium, if you will. That was clearly not the case in LOTR as we saw it in the previous movies. We saw orcs and ents talk, but cave trolls, balrogs, eagles and winged steeds did not. We saw Gandalf talking to a moth, but the moth did not reply. We saw no animals talking at all.

It seems to me that for the story to really work, Smaug needs not to be treated as in the "Talking Animal" category, but as an "other" being, like the Balrog. The cave troll was shown to be in the "animal" category, having no speech and being led around on a chain by its masters, but the Balrog was known to be something on a level that rivaled Gandalf before we even saw it. I think that something similar needs to happen with Smaug, or his scenes will not be the climax of the story that they ought to be. He's the Big Bad at the end of a long and difficult journey and he needs to seem "worth it".

YMMV, of course. Smile

Silverlode

"Of all faces those of our familiares are the ones both most difficult to play fantastic tricks with, and most difficult really to see with fresh attention. They have become like the things which once attracted us by their glitter, or their colour, or their shape, and we laid hands on them, and then locked them in our hoard, acquired them, and acquiring ceased to look at them.
Creative fantasy, because it is mainly trying to do something else [make something new], may open your hoard and let all the locked things fly away like cage-birds. The gems all turn into flowers or flames, and you will be warned that all you had (or knew) was dangerous and potent, not really effectively chained, free and wild; no more yours than they were you." -On Fairy Stories

(This post was edited by Silverlode on Oct 9 2007, 3:32am)


Patty
Immortal


Oct 9 2007, 2:30am

Post #37 of 124 (1194 views)
Shortcut
Well, I admit I have been dreading the thought... [In reply to] Can't Post

of the spiders talking. What kind of voices would they use? The ones on the BBC audio are mostly unintelligible. I know, I know Treebeard talked. But the spider thing I'm dreading. And the eagles.

For Gondor!


squire
Half-elven


Oct 9 2007, 2:53am

Post #38 of 124 (1140 views)
Shortcut
Whoopi Goldberg, of course! [In reply to] Can't Post

I loved her as a hyena in Lion King.

"Mufasa!"

"Brrr.... say it again!"



squire online:
RR Discussions: The Valaquenta, A Shortcut to Mushrooms, and Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit
Lights! Action! Discuss on the Movie board!: 'A Journey in the Dark'.
Footeramas: The 3rd TORn Reading Room LotR Discussion; and "Tolkien would have LOVED it!"
squiretalk introduces the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: A Reader's Diary


orcbane
Gondor


Oct 9 2007, 3:55am

Post #39 of 124 (1114 views)
Shortcut
Read my beak [In reply to] Can't Post

I think too much of the story is told through the animals/creatures to eliminate their 'speaking parts' entirely. All have roles, some of which are critical to the story, such as Carc the old raven, Smaug, Trolls and spiders, etc. In Middle Earth many more things have sentinence then in our world today, like trees, hounds, horses (Mearas) and even a sword.

A great part of getting it to work, will be which actors do their voices and any effects chosen.

The thing that I dread most is the scene where the animals set the table and serve dinner. Too much like Cinderella to me.


labingi_maura
Rivendell


Oct 9 2007, 4:27am

Post #40 of 124 (1169 views)
Shortcut
If there are voices for the spiders and Smaug... [In reply to] Can't Post

I like the idea of Bilbo only being able to understand the spiders and Smaug because he is wearing the One Ring. So, maybe the audience doesn't need to hear them speaking at all. (Shelob didn't speak in PJ's ROTK, although in the book we read of her human-like thoughts.)
But if they do speak, and the audience is privy to what Bilbo hears, I think the spiders' voices should probably sound distorted and echo-y. Maybe the Dwarves only hear unintelliglble whispery, hissing sounds (are their voices described as "whispery" in the book? I don't have a copy handy.) But then in his head Bilbo hears what the sounds mean: primitive need-words, like "...f-e-e-e-d...." "...k-i-l-l..." That could be nice and creepy!

I personally would rather the Eagles didn't speak; I'd rather they behave as though they understand human speech, and appear very regal and intelligent and... a bit mysterious. I think they should just stare piercingly at Gandalf who does speak to them, and then translate their thoughts for the dwarves and Bilbo. I want the Eagles to be awesome, not like some nice bird you try to pet. And, Gwaihir did not speak in the LOTR films; so, I would like it if TH maintained that treatment.

And Smaug's voice, whether we hear it "ourselves" or hear it in Bilbo's head, should be uber-awesome. Terrifying. It should make us very glad there are not any real dragons around, now. Its like, when we see Smaug the Magnificent revealed, small children should begin screaming.

-Maura


In Reply To
of the spiders talking. What kind of voices would they use? The ones on the BBC audio are mostly unintelligible. I know, I know Treebeard talked. But the spider thing I'm dreading. And the eagles.


"I am in fact a hobbit in all but size." - J.R.R.Tolkien


Sunflower
Valinor

Oct 9 2007, 8:24am

Post #41 of 124 (1145 views)
Shortcut
Voices, and SW Legacy [In reply to] Can't Post

Laibigni, EXCELLENT about the voices! I personally think that it was an absolute stroke of *GENIUS* the way PJ made the Ring "speak." That it wasn't just enough for Gandalf to explain to us that the Ring and Sauron were one and how and why; we had to be viscerally reminded of this fact. The Ring "speaking" when it tempted someone or was handled in a different way (the Council) gave it an element of menace and mystery, that it wasn';t just an inantimate object carried around in a pocket. It was almost as if Sauron were with them spying on them. Some of the animals can "speak" the same way.....funny, your comment on the Spiders made me think of Voldemort's voice from the "Chamber of Secrets" movie...."Kill! Kill!"...Jo Rowling's "high, cold voice."

Regarding Howard Shore: Oh, he'll certainly return. Like I said in another thread, a couple months ago he gave an interview for Film Score Monthly..com, and when asked if he had been "fantasizing" about music for The Hobbit, he smiled and replied with one word--"YES". (a mountain of gold for your artistic fantasies, Mr Shore!Smile)
As to having "composing fatigue", I think his last couple of projects may well leave him refreshed and ready for another long go. As they are all modern constructs. He seems to have taken particular care in rading his entire record collection for "The Departed"! (and in an absolutely brilliant way, too. The songs fit their scenes perfectly and the segues are not only flawless, but sometimes even drive the plot along on their own.)

As regarding Star Wars..I HAVE to reply to Elizabeth hereWink

I was 8 yrs old when the first one came out in '77. It wasn't the first movie I saw, (that was probably "Dumbo" when I was 4) but it was my first "real" cinema experience.I still remember the visceral impact John Williams's score had on me, esp in the "Binary Sunset" scene....that where it first sank in, after that,I was HOOKED. The rest, as they say, is history. I'm 38 now.

I won't comment on your opinion of thre first trilogy being "sleazy" in comparison to the 2nd one....(though if you don;t mind me saying, you sound like one of the fanboys on AICN who scream "GEORGE LUCAS RAPED MY CHILDHOOD!") I think I can guess the reason for your opinion. And some of your observations will have merit.

Things that remain inexcusable, then and now:

1)Yes, I agree, Jar-Jar was a mistake. But I have to say, IMO, Jar Jar and the Ewoks are both unlovely creations that bookend the trilogy in the corniness factor perfectly. I loved the Ewoks as a kid, but looking at ROTJ now, after being able to see the whole 6-part story, they are the cringe-worthy creations they really are. The fanboys were right. But the impact of the story as whole at that point cancels them out. You can tune them out...after a fashion.

2) The "Scientific" explanations for the Force....although it must be said that as John Williams weaves his overpowering spell, memories of midichlorians are forgotten by the time you get to Empire. And you can tell Yoda must have thought it all hogwash.

3)Jedi being "harvested", not "organically grown." That is, the Order not being allowed to have children. This is one of those gray areas to me that speaks of the autobiographical element of Sw that few writers rarely seem to see. It isn't just Lucas the rapacious moneymaker and entrepeneur--it is Lucas whose wife left him because they wanted children and Lucas, it was found couldn't father any; this is one of the many reasons. All 3 of his kids are adopted. It is Lucas who hasn;t really had a rela relationship since his divorce, except for a fling or two in the late 80's. This of course "cramped" him as a storyteller, for decidedly worse. Compare this with the warm, flowing, lyrical quailty of LOTR, produced by the loving couple of PJ and Fran. You can feel it in every reel.
Would Sw have worked better if Lucas had been a happily married man withhisown natural kids? I'm sure it would. Even though he is and reamins, a lazy writer. But this I have learned to live with.


But on the whole, I have to say that after several repeated viewings of the whole 6-part saga over the last 2 yrs, future generations will note only the Tolkienian quality of the story--how unbelievably, terribly SAD it is. It is indeed a Greek tragedy. Someone noted that the first trilogy beforethe 2nd came out was more straightforward. a fantasy of good vs evil; whereas the addition of the ist made it too depressingly contemporary. Indeed.

Some of the great qualities of the Ist troligy that make the Saga the great work it is.

1) Some of the disgruntled fanboys talk dispragingly of the "pristine" quality of the ist trilogy next to the revolutionary "used-universe" depicted in the 2nd--dark, gritty, heck, beggars in the streets! CGI ruined everything, they say; without even considering that the story was MEANT to start out bright and cheery-looking, with the Republic at its height; and slowly degenerating into the galaxy of "oppressed and beaten peoples" in the 2nd trilogy. Just as we talk of the Hobbit goingfrom light to dark, try watching the Ist trilogy. Revenge of the Sith practically ends, literally, in Hell. (Or rather, it almost does.) The color palette goes from blazing sunlight to hellish dark in one film.
As an adult, I was just as fascinated with the many CGI-splendors of the Old Republic as I remember being fascinated with places like Dagobah as a kid. Indeed, I found Dagobah unimpressive and not at all mysterious as an adult, as a result. The veritable panapoly of fantastic worlds in the Episdoe 3, in particular, made my imagination soar in a way it hadn;t in a long time. The magic was back! I wanted to know moreaobut those worlds the Jedi were sent off to, withthe forests, the fantastic plant life in multicolored moons and purple sunlight, the rain and rocks, and how they managed to operate those "dark satanic mills" the planet where Anakin meets his doom. The opera was fantastic.

2)John Williams';s score. I urge you, Elizabrth, to go back to Eps 2 and 3 and listen over the closing credits, how one ending tile seamlessly flows into another. "Acorss the Stars" is one of the most beautiful things I've ever heard. The violin phrases in that scene on the balcony in ROTS, with the corny dialogue...Padme talking about going back to raise their baby on Naboo. As you know what is coming in the rest of the Saga, one forgets the dialgoue, listens to the heartbreaking violin solo, and it is unbelievably tragic. Likewise, the use of the female soloist in the scene when Padme waits in her chambers, Anakin pacesin the Jedi Council chamber, the scen intercuts betwen the two of them "looking" at each other across a great disance as we hear Palpatine in a voice-over, "You do know, don''t you, that if you do not (forgot the words here),..she will die. It is the only way you can save her." And the creepy female voice moans on...the most startling musical phrase in the piece.

3)In fact, all of Ep 3 is genius...as you see Luke and Leia in the 2nd I remember the events of Ep 3 and think, "My GOD, what a tragedy. How did those kids even survive, let alone grow up in such a time?" And thankfully they did not know of their tragic ancestry or family stories.

4) the casting of Natalie Portman was a better decison than it appears. When she cries "Anakin, I love you!" before the epic Battle, she conveys the very bruised innocence, the iconic qualities of fragiltily and strength that her daughter possessed, in a different way.You can see how she must have been very likeone of the maidens of the Silmarillion, taken gracefully before their time. There is nothing sweet or innocent about Leia (I always thought that Williams' theme for Leia in the 2nd trilogy suited Padme far better.) Leia looks like her grandmother but has her fathers' personality---angry, and hard as nails. Unloike her mother, she is born to play her role. For Padme, it was a burden she was never meant to carry. A lot of it is growing up in more hostile environment poltically, a harsher time. A lot of it, too, has to do with their voices. Compare them and you'll know what I mean.

Sorry...going on about SW!.....I have to get back on subject. No, I haven;read all of Unfinished Tales. Or was that "History of ME"? Certainly the Cottage of Lost Play. I was just speculating.

Funny how, now that you mention it, sometimes you can go back and re-examine an old tale or song and find something new init, relevant to a later time. Agsain, I use a U2 example. "Sunday Bloody Sunday." Written in 1983, abot the Troubles, here is the last verse:

And it's true we're all immune
When fact is fiction and TV is reality
And today the millions cry
We eat and drink while tomorrow they die
The real battle yet begun
To claim the victory Jesus won

If that does not describe Americain 2007, I don't know what does.


Elizabeth
Half-elven


Oct 9 2007, 8:57am

Post #42 of 124 (1131 views)
Shortcut
Not so much a 'problem' [In reply to] Can't Post

as the fact that it was just less gripping than LotR. It was a thoroughly tragic tale whose protagonist was considerably less sympathetic than the major characters in LotR.

There are several extensive threads on it linked off Main (a 'review' thread) and elsewhere, as well as a detailed discussion recently concluded in the Reading Room. I highly recommend them.




Son of Elizabeth in Frodo's tree
March, 2007


Elizabeth is the TORnsib formerly known as 'erather'


Elizabeth
Half-elven


Oct 9 2007, 9:21am

Post #43 of 124 (1129 views)
Shortcut
Is Smaug so terrifying [In reply to] Can't Post

that children should scream? I don't think so. He was a dragon, of course, and did a lot of damage to Laketown, but in the scene with Bilbo he was positively charming. And Tolkien, after all, rendered him like this:

I still fancy him voiced by Alan Rickman.

The Thrush is a problem. A talking dragon is one thing, but a talking Thrush screams "kiddie movie".




Son of Elizabeth in Frodo's tree
March, 2007


Elizabeth is the TORnsib formerly known as 'erather'


Compa_Mighty
Tol Eressea


Oct 9 2007, 9:56pm

Post #44 of 124 (1110 views)
Shortcut
Episode 3 was indeed great! [In reply to] Can't Post

Just to answer that point. I don't have a problem with the CGI, I love Coruscant, and I don't think they could have pulled it off in any other way. The movies are not flawless, but they are far from the disaster they have been publicized as.

Elizabeth, I hope you could tell me your thoughts about Children of Húrin, you left me thinking about your comment.

I don't think Smaug should be terrifying either. He is rather classy while he talks. I agree with what has been said, he should be treated as another being, not an animal. I insist, if ILM could pull off Sean Connery as a dragon in 1994, I don't see why WETA can't do so with someone else in 2008. Alan Rickman? He *could* be... but he tends to be a little whiny sounding, doesn't he? I remember this robot from the Hitchhiker's, his character from Galaxy Quest and Snape always in a sarcastic, whiny tone... perhaps that happens with the Sheriff of Nottingham as well? One thing I do believe, is Smaug has to be British. As much as I like thier voices, no James Earl Jones or Lawrence Fishburne here, please. Jeremy Irons has been suggested as well... he does like movies with dragons (Dungeons & Dragons, Eragon)

The Eagles must definitely not talk!

Let it be heard! We want Jackson for The Hobbit!


MsC
Bree


Oct 10 2007, 2:13am

Post #45 of 124 (1109 views)
Shortcut
I just wanted to say how much I am enjoying this thread! [In reply to] Can't Post

As a johnny-come-lately sort of member, I wish I could have been around for the heady days when you were all anticipating the release of LOTR. I feel somewhat heartened thinking I might be around for the heady days of the Hobbit's release! (Fingers crossed!)


labingi_maura
Rivendell


Oct 10 2007, 4:43am

Post #46 of 124 (1085 views)
Shortcut
Me too... [In reply to] Can't Post

...I'm enjoying reading all these different insights and takes on TH possibilities also! The anticipation is great fun!
Regarding Smaug, its just that (as someone mentioned earlier) I too don't want Smaug to be too much like any other talking dragons that we've seen before in films. I think we need to be surprised by Smaug, something about him needs to be very memorable and different. That is going to be supremely difficult, I would guess. I'm betting it will turn on giving Smaug a complex personality so he's not just a one-note player like the Balrog. I mean, the Balrog was really well done, looked great, was very menacing and all, but he wasn't a personality.

I like the idea of keeping the original dialogue (and keeping it telepathic) because it does show Smaug's wit and Bilbo's intelligence (and hutzpa) in getting the thing to reveal its weak spot, but Smaug's wit should be just a mask overlaying something dreadful, powerful, terrifying and very, very satisfied with itself. But Bilbo is like the little annoying mosquito that can't be slapped away, and when Smaug's thin mask of civility finally breaks we see something astoundingly primeval and hideous become angry.

I remember once being stared at by a large black jaguar at a wildlife refuge. Even though it was in a cage, as I stood there I grew terrified of it. It was like I could feel hate radiating out of it and it was focused on me. Intellectually I knew the poor animal had been mistreated and maybe I reminded it of the person who had hurt it, but on another level... it was like the bars weren't there. I began sweating with fear because those huge eyes were telegraphing "I want to kill you..."

BTW, I love all the discussion about what was and was not working in the various SW films. Lots of good analysis there.

That pesky story point of the talking thrush; maybe Bilbo could quickly write his message (Bilbo would have to have pen and ink and his journal handy, somehow) and the little thrush could carry the scrap of paper to Laketown? That would also be a visual cue that this is no ordinary bird, its carrying something in its beak, which is a plus in a film.

-Maura

"I am in fact a hobbit in all but size." - J.R.R.Tolkien


N.E. Brigand
Half-elven


Oct 10 2007, 4:54am

Post #47 of 124 (1108 views)
Shortcut
"keeping it telepathic" [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
I like the idea of keeping the original dialogue (and keeping it telepathic) because it does show Smaug's wit and Bilbo's intelligence (and hutzpa) in getting the thing to reveal its weak spot, but Smaug's wit should be just a mask overlaying something dreadful, powerful, terrifying and very, very satisfied with itself. But Bilbo is like the little annoying mosquito that can't be slapped away, and when Smaug's thin mask of civility finally breaks we see something astoundingly primeval and hideous become angry.



You mean, "making it telepathic", right? And as for the effect you'd like the dialogue to convey, I'd like to note that Richard Boone does a fine, if un-British, job with this in the animated version.

And surely the talking thrush presents no difficulty -- could it not act much as the moth does in the LotR films? We see the thrush nearby as Bilbo describes Smaug's weakness to the dwarves, and we see it fly off. Then in the midst of the destruction of Laketown, we see it fly to Bard's ear, then see his face show astonishment as he looks up to note the bare spot on the dragon's breast.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Discuss The Children of Húrin in the Reading Room, June 11-October 14.


labingi_maura
Rivendell


Oct 10 2007, 5:43am

Post #48 of 124 (1106 views)
Shortcut
Oh, I was just referring to my own earlier posts [In reply to] Can't Post

regarding "keeping" it telepathic. But you're right, "making" would have been a better choice of words. I am still thinking that seeing a dragon forming words with its mouth like a human could take Smaug too far into the cartoony realm, and is too much like previous (but very well done) talking dragons (like Draco in Dragonheart.)
I'm really hoping PJ will think of some way to make Smaug different and memorable, somehow. Although I do agree that Richard Boone hit a very good note with his interpretation of Smaug. That seqence was the most well-done part of that animated film, in my opinion.
And yes, the scenes you describe with the thrush are pretty much how they handled that in the animated "The Hobbit." And that worked; the audience did not hear the thrush speaking, but Bard did.
Maybe I am over-thinking this, but to me, its that Gandalf is a wizard so he can understand the speech of animals and birds (and insects) but ordinary people wouldn't be able to.
I was just trying to think of a way to get around the whole talking-animal thing, because I think that if several other animals or creatures besides Smaug can speak, it will tend to push the film more towards the child-like, fairy-tale end of the spectrum and I'm in favor of it being more "adult" (not R-rated, but just epic and magnificent.). But that's just my taste.
Now that I think of it, though, I remember watching Disney's "Sleeping Beauty" as a kid and being very awed and terrified as Maleficent transformed into a dragon to stop the Prince. That was dam well done; quite staggering to a youngster. ("Now shall you deal with me, O prince, and all the powers of H-E-L-L!!)
I want Smaug to give people goosebumps!
-Maura

"I am in fact a hobbit in all but size." - J.R.R.Tolkien


orcbane
Gondor


Oct 10 2007, 1:02pm

Post #49 of 124 (1103 views)
Shortcut
In for a penny [In reply to] Can't Post

  

And surely the talking thrush presents no difficulty -- could it not act much as the moth does in the LotR films? We see the thrush nearby as Bilbo describes Smaug's weakness to the dwarves, and we see it fly off. Then in the midst of the destruction of Laketown, we see it fly to Bard's ear, then see his face show astonishment as he looks up to note the bare spot on the dragon's breast.



I agree with N.E.B. that it should not be altered to telepathic, and like the scene suggested. In Middle-Earth these creatures we are talking about have real voices & language. It is a basic element of this world, and one that should not be abandoned lightly, but accepted as a challenge to present on film.

I am not thinking safe. Safe will be disappointing and a wasted chance.

It will have to be very original & daring to stand alongside LoTR, I believe.


hasufel
Rivendell


Oct 10 2007, 3:01pm

Post #50 of 124 (1074 views)
Shortcut
in agreement [In reply to] Can't Post

I think the telepathy idea is a good one. It could make for some very powerful moments on film.

I agree with many that Smaug should be intelligent, smug, awe inspring and terrifying all rolled up into one.

That is no easy task, but Smaug was no ordinary dragon.

That is where the hand wringing starts.

I also agree with orcbane. These creatures do speak, and it was part of the story. So by changing how they communicate, will they be changing too much of the feel of the story?

I have also trumpeted the idea of continuity and seamless storytelling for all five movies. But to clarify, I believe the prequel movie is really where that will be important, in my opinion. That is sort of the point to the bridge movie between the Hobbit and the trilogy. It will help clarify the timeline between the stories.

But that should not affect the feel and preservation of the origin material of the Hobbit.

This will not be easy, at all. In fact I would say that these two movies (Hobbit, prequel) are more challenging then the entire trilogy was. If done correctly, they will go down in history as one of the best. But if done poorly, it could down as one of the biggest flops.

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 Next page Last page  View All
 
 

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.